Cochrane Collaboration

About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

Abstract: General health checks involve multiple tests in a person who does not feel ill with the purpose of finding disease early, preventing disease from developing, or providing reassurance. Health checks are a common element of health care in some countries. To many people health checks intuitively make sense, but experience from screening programmes for individual diseases have shown that the benefits may be smaller than expected and the harms greater. One possible harm from health checks is the diagnosis and treatment of conditions that were not destined to cause symptoms or death. Their diagnosis will, therefore, be superfluous and carry the risk of unnecessary treatment. The authors identified 16 randomised trials which had compared a group of adults offered general health checks to a group not offered health checks. Results were available from 14 trials, including 182,880 participants. Nine trials studied the risk of death and included 155,899 participants and 11,940 deaths. There was no effect on the risk of death, or on the risk of death due to cardiovascular diseases or cancer. We did not find an effect on the risk of illness but one trial found an increased number of people identified with high blood pressure and high cholesterol, and one trial found an increased number with chronic diseases. One trial reported the total number of new diagnoses per participant and found a 20% increase over six years compared to the control group. No trials compared the total number of new prescriptions but two out of four trials found an increased number of people using drugs for high blood pressure. Two out of four trials found that health checks made people feel somewhat healthier, but this result is not reliable. They did not find that health checks had an effect on the number of admissions to hospital, disability, worry, the number of referrals to specialists, additional visits to the physician, or absence from work, but most of these outcomes were poorly studied. None of the trials reported on the number of follow-up tests after positive screening results, or the amount of surgery used. One reason for the apparent lack of effect may be that primary care physicians already identify and intervene when they suspect a patient to be at high risk of developing disease when they see them for other reasons. Also, those at high risk of developing disease may not attend general health checks when invited. Most of the trials were old, which makes the results less applicable to today's settings because the treatments used for conditions and risk factors have changed. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used in the trials, and considering that death from cardiovascular diseases and cancer were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Early versus late tracheostomy for critically ill patients

Abstract: Background Long-term mechanical ventilation is the most common situation for which tracheostomy is indicated for patients in intensive care units (ICUs). 'Early' and 'late' tracheostomies are two categories of the timing of tracheostomy. Evidence on the advantages attributed to early versus late tracheostomy is somewhat conflicting but includes shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of early (≤ 10 days after tracheal intubation) versus late tracheostomy (> 10 days after tracheal intubation) in critically ill adults predicted to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation with different clinical conditions. Search methods This is an update of a review last published in 2012 (Issue 3, The Cochrane Library) with previous searches run in December 2010. In this version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to August 2013); EMBASE (via Ovid) (1974 to August 2013); LILACS (1986 to August 2013); PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) at www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au (1999 to August 2013) and CINAHL (1982 to August 2013). We reran the search in October 2014 and will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review. Selection criteria We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs or QRCTs) comparing early tracheostomy (two to 10 days after intubation) against late tracheostomy (> 10 days after intubation) for critically ill adult patients expected to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation. Data collection and analysis Two review authors extracted data and conducted a quality assessment. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted for mortality, time spent on mechanical ventilation and time spent in the ICU. Main results We included eight RCTs (N = 1977 participants). At the longest follow-up time available in these studies, evidence of moderate quality from seven RCTs (n = 1903) showed lower mortality rates in the early as compared with the late tracheostomy group (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98; P value 0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) ≅ 11). Divergent results were reported on the time spent on mechanical ventilation and no differences were noted for pneumonia, but the probability of discharge from the ICU was higher at day 28 in the early tracheostomy group (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55; P value 0.006; NNTB ≅ 8). Authors' conclusions The whole findings of this systematic review are no more than suggestive of the superiority of early over late tracheostomy because no information of high quality is available for specific subgroups with particular characteristics.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Abstract: Objective To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Main outcome measures Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review. Results 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced mortality and admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 5 to 48 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes. Conclusions In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with notable differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain

Abstract: Purpose Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP.